|
|
| ||
Our ordinary concepts of a person and a moral right are too vague
to allow us to deduce an answer to such questions as whether the
embryo/fetus is a person, whether it has rights, or whether it has a serious
right to life. Attempts to change this situation through philosophical
analysis lead to contradictions and seemingly unresolvable problems.
In this situation, we must draw a line and make a decision
as to whether and when we will extend personhood and rights
to the embryo or the fetus. This does not mean that our decision
is arbitrary or amoral. It can and should be based on moral concerns,
but they will be concerns that are extrinsic to the nature of
the embryo/fetus.
The most important consideration to make in this context
is the welfare of women. It is their welfare that is most seriously
affected by moral or legal rules concerning abortion. Historically,
women have been denied many rights and privileges enjoyed by men.
Even today, if they are to control their lives to the same extent
as men and avoid many forms of abuse and degradation, they must
be able to control whether and when they have children. Ideally,
this control would be achieved through the use of contraception.
In the absence of perfect contraceptive techniques and practices,
abortion is necessary.
Therefore, we should not extend personhood and moral rights to the fetus early in pregnancy. At the very least, the timing should be far enough into pregnancy so that a women can know that she is pregnant, consider the impact on her life, discuss the issue with others, and have an abortion if she decides to do so. The precise time cannot be decided here, but it should not be prior to the half-way point and might be well after that point in some cases.
| Ariadne Home | Abortion Bibliography | Abortion Home |
 |
||